Opinion

Hot Topics:

Scientific authority on climate change: NIPCC or IPCC (letter)

Updated:
04/25/2014 04:19:07 PM EDT

Climate change is well documented in the scientific literature. Virtually every current peer-reviewed publication supports the increasingly robust theory that our planetary climate is changing and that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. Every major national scientific professional society — including my own American Chemical Society — publishes a strong climate science statement. If scientists are in such widespread agreement, why is there a public perception that scientists are divided on the issue of climate change?

We can find the answer to this question — in part — reflected in a recent York Daily Record letter authored by Missy Updyke (April 21). Updyke's “A second opinion on climate change” states, “the science is not settled just because a corrupt international bureaucracy declares it so.” She attacks the “propaganda, including wild exaggerations” disseminated by the IPCC. She instead promotes the NIPCC as an authoritative voice that has “no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency.”

Let me set the record straight. I have had direct contact and interaction with both the IPCC and NIPCC.

NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change): In order to become more informed about self-proclaimed climate skeptic data, I attended the June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.

Advertisement

C., at which the NIPCC released its first “Climate Change Reconsidered” assessment report. The lead-off speaker was Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the go-to climate skeptics because of his MIT credentials. He received a standing ovation from the breakfast crowd even before he spoke.

Later in the day, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., was the keynote speaker. Inhofe is widely recognized for proclaiming the threat of global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” (Senate floor speech, July 28, 2003). Inhofe received repeated up-and-down standing ovations from his energized audience. Frankly, this conference seemed more like a tent meeting of climate-skeptic evangelists than a scientific congress.

Both the conference and the NIPCC assessment report were funded by the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian think tank. In turn, the Heartland Institute is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, fossil fuel industries, tobacco industries and multiple other individuals and corporations focused on influencing governmental policy. With a little research, you can easily follow the money and influence. In other words, the NIPCC is far from an organization that “seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda.” The singular goal of the NIPCC is to sow uncertainty and doubt in the interest of influencing policy.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): During the second half of the 20th century, increasing studies from multiple scientific disciplines were documenting climate change and related impacts. By the 1980s, it was recognized that a comprehensive assessment body needed to be formed to determine what we know and where the uncertainties lie. Global-scale issues required a global-scale organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was born.

The IPCC is currently recognized by scientists and policy makers around the globe as the most comprehensive and authoritative body for assessing the science of climate change. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Association (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) to provide independent analysis of the existing consensus within the scientific community.

In support of my research, I visited the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. The Secretariat occupies the 8th floor of World Meteorological Organization (WMO) headquarters. Although the IPCC Assessment Reports are widely cited in the literature, little is said about the Secretariat and the organizational structure of the IPCC. In the words of the information and communication officer, “the Secretariat plays a coordinating role. The IPCC is huge, but at the same time it is very tiny. It involves thousands of scientists, who participate on a voluntary basis, but the administrative part of the organization is tiny.” The Secretariat includes only 13 paid staffers. Scientists from all over the world contribute to its work, none of whom are “paid a single penny” for their efforts.

The IPCC is apolitical. Its role is not to make policy; that is for governmental entities. The role of the IPCC is to assess peer-reviewed, published scientific and technical literature. The IPCC then makes this information available to policymakers.

In summary, the aim of the IPCC is to be objective, open and transparent in its rigorous review of the literature. Although the IPCC is policy neutral, it is policy relevant. By contrast, the NIPCC is well-funded by special interests with the express goal of influencing policy.

The disinformation campaign of the NIPCC has effectively muddied the scientific waters — they don't need to be correct, just to create doubt. The public incorrectly assumes there remains a debate among the scientific community. This has thwarted any real action to date by our policy makers.

OTTAWA, Ontario (AP) — The death of actor Leonard Nimoy last week has inspired people to post photos on social media of marked-up five-dollar Canadian banknotes that show former prime minister Wilfrid Laurier transformed to resemble Spock, Nimoy's famous "Star Trek" character. Full Story